If one wanted to assess the relative merits of the respective perspectives, one could consider whether the list of nations affected and unaffected corresponded with evidence of relative security risks, what the opinions of people tasked with securing the country were on its likely efficacy, and of course whether Trump's circle discussed the order with those responsible for executing it in order to ensure it was clear and enforceable or purposely kept the vaguely worded text of the order from them until they were required to implement it, with the inevitable result of confusion, a legal challenge and people whose right to enter the country changed in mid-flight. And timed the announcement for Holocaust Memorial Day.

Then one could also take into account many of his critics aren't remotely globalist and some of them have invested significant political effort into trying to destroy the very foundation of global organisations like the EU.

I think based on the above no reasonable person could conclude the argument his primary focus was security has as much merit as the argument his primary focus was to cause maximum chaos to upset liberals, enthuse the elements of his base most excited by anti-Muslim gesture politics and test the loyalties of his colleagues in Congress and border agencies.

It would be easier to see his actions as 'just nationalist' if even one of the countries whose citizens have been banned from entering the US wasn't a Muslim-majority country.